You Make The Call

[uclaben]

[ QUOTE ]
If it were a live casino game I'd have this guy in the back reaming him a new one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously?

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Care to explain the last sentence? I don't really understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was a great big game there wasn't anything funny going on, he wanted to let them save the little bit on the end and didn't understand the implications of showing it. If these bets were large for the game it becomes more likely he wanted to let the JJ know he wasn't going to see 4 5s for the side pot.

edit to add: I am assuming a cash game here as touranments have specific penalty rules in place to deal with this sort of thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was a cash game and there was only $140 in the pot before the river because the flop came up 555 and everyone slow played their hands. On the turn the BB and MP checked and button bet and was smooth called by both. So the big river bet and call by MP and button was worth the extra cash.

I'd like to hear more replies based on this updated info. We had to make a difficult decision and there were some angry people.

[Khabbi]

According to my interpretation of the rules of poker the main pot should be awarded to the BB. The side pot should be awarded to the Button.

Any other decision to me would be subjective. I try not to have to make those types of decisions, that's why the rules come in handy. Unless there was already a house rule or precedent for killing hands that are exposed prematurely or voiding action as a result of exposed hands there really isn't anything you can do in this situation other than abide by the rules.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
This was a cash game and there was only $140 in the pot before the river because the flop came up 555 and everyone slow played their hands. On the turn the BB and MP checked and button bet and was smooth called by both. So the big river bet and call by MP and button was worth the extra cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case I would strongly consider 86ing both the all-in player and the JJ player. Depends on if there is any history relationship between those players. A reasonable solution if this really was an "honest mistake" would be for the all-in player to pay the TT $400. There isn't any rule requiring him to do so, but that would be an honorable way to settle it.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was a cash game and there was only $140 in the pot before the river because the flop came up 555 and everyone slow played their hands. On the turn the BB and MP checked and button bet and was smooth called by both. So the big river bet and call by MP and button was worth the extra cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case I would strongly consider 86ing both the all-in player and the JJ player. Depends on if there is any history relationship between those players. A reasonable solution if this really was an "honest mistake" would be for the all-in player to pay the TT $400. There isn't any rule requiring him to do so, but that would be an honorable way to settle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK there is no history between these two and the way the end of the hand played out it was so fast I doubt that the BB really had any idea what he was doing. He said after that he was just having some fun and didn't realize what had happened. I was sitting across from him and it looked to me like he was just being a jerk and bragging but when the guy with JJ insta-called I knew we were going to be in for some trouble.

We don't have any written rules but because we've been playing together for so long we all have a "baseline" of what is proper etiquette and we are all experienced poker players and it was clear to us that BB crossed the line by quite a bit. After separating BB from the other 2 (the button was also furious because he expected to get paid) and getting him into another room for his protection we all sat down and discussed the action and here's what we came up with:

BB was forced to forfeit his hand and all the money he put in. Button and MP split the pot. This wasn't the optimum poker solution but it was really a crappy situation with some big tempers and angry people and a couple of us felt that if BB was awarded any part of the action then he might have ended up in a stretcher.

At first BB was upset but I could see he wasn't really feeling that badly about the decision and he realized the stupidity of his actions. MP is the table fish and button isn't that far behind. A few of us really wanted to appease them, MP especially. Unfortunately, after the game MP announced he was through with our game and he hasn't shown up since but two of the guys who are friends with him say he just needs time.

[Khabbi]

Sounds like you guys made a subjective ruling and played favorites based on your own personal gain (appeasing the fish). This is why as the host/floor, you should stick to the rules.

Of all the guys to take this ruling poorly, I see no reason why MP is the one to be upset here. It confuses me because he's clearly the one who benefited the most from your decision. I really would like to hear what he thinks should have happened instead.

As it stands, without being there, I think that making decisions to arbitrarily kill winning hands is a poor decision.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, after the game MP announced he was through with our game

[/ QUOTE ]

Does MP actually think he's entitled to any part of this pot other than what he put in despite having the worst hand on all streets against all players? Even if the mistake didn't happen and JJ folded he would have lost the money already in the pot right? Or does he think it's a bad precedent?

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, after the game MP announced he was through with our game

[/ QUOTE ]

Does MP actually think he's entitled to any part of this pot other than what he put in despite having the worst hand on all streets against all players? Even if the mistake didn't happen and JJ folded he would have lost the money already in the pot right? Or does he think it's a bad precedent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the logic behind his claim is wrong but we made a group decision to set a precedent. BB is an extremely aggressive player and he has been known to try and pull a few angles but nothing malicious. BB is also the games host and he is the one who started it a long time ago so we felt justified in penalizing him harshly.

I really posted this to see if there was something glaring that we missed and based on the responses, it doesn't seem like it.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you guys made a subjective ruling and played favorites based on your own personal gain (appeasing the fish). This is why as the host/floor, you should stick to the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some home games are more structured than others and this one in particular is very laid back and casual with long time players and every now and then a new player will join. It's not a big group and we've all played at our local card rooms for many years so we know the ropes. Even the noobs aren't really because we don't want the game to degenerate into a free for all. So when I say that one is a fish and the other is a guppie I use these terms relatively.

Honestly, we were all taken aback by the level of anger and the threats of violence.

Edit to add: I forgot to mention that we felt that if we had awarded BB any part of the pot he would have been beaten to a pulp by MP. Personally I think BB was ind of relieved that we ruled that way but he hasn't said anything about it since and we have made a "gentleman's agreement" not to discuss it. He's kind of an odd character and has no social life outside of poker but he is a consistent winner playing locally.

[atrainpsu]

The only thing that was affected by the flashing of the card was whether the button called the 2 allins on the river. MP would have lost the main pot either way. To give him part of the main pot seems absurd.

It seems reasonable for BB to either pay the button the amount that he would have won in the side pot ($400) or forfeit the main pot to the button, whichever was less.

I'm guessing the main pot was over $400, so I think it should have gone down like this.
MP loses his $100 on the river and whatever else he put in previously. Button loses the $100 on the river and whatever else he put in previously. BB wins the main pot, which he still deserves to win. Now instead of MP paying button the $400 for the side pot, BB has to pay that instead.

This solution was the best case scenario for MP (if button had called him anyway, he would have gone broke), the best case scenario for button (if he had called MP anyway, he would have won $400 in the side pot), and BB pays a penalty for screwing up the action.